This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OK boomer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article and talk page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The OK Boomer expression seems to have suddenly disappeared entirely from usage?! -- Tallard ( talk) 04:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
A user not aware that talk-page text is NOT to be deleted (WP:TALK) (user:smuckola) previously deleted my comment! Do not do this.-- Tallard ( talk) 00:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
In fact, given the short longevity of this expression, and that wikipedia is not a compendium of all expressions from all time, this article might be a candidate for deletion.-- Tallard ( talk) 00:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
On 1998 on the cover page of a Sonic comic book, specifically issue 140, the index features a section called “Hey boomers”. This may be one of the earliest versions of the phrase “ok boomers”. 69.178.59.187 ( talk) 04:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Is it worth pointing out that "OK Boomer" is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, attempting to dismiss arguments by attacking the person making them rather than by responding to the actual content of the argument? AmigoNico ( talk) 01:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Have created the applicable redirects OK! Boomer!, Ok! Boomer!, and Okay! Boomer!. With the addition of two exclamation marks the term is turned from a negative divisive expression of disdain to a positive affirmation of a generation of accomplishment. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Good morning. I reverted your last two bold edits to the OK boomer page as WP:UNDUE and in violation of WP:NPOV. You also don't need to critique the critique in the lede — any refutations of criticism belong in a discussion/criticism/responses section, ideally at the end. As your bold edits were reverted, it is a good idea to engage in the WP:BRD cycle. Create a new topic on the article's talk page, present your suggested wording changes and see what others think. Then when we have consensus, we can implement the agreed upon text without fear of reversion or edit warring. Lewisguile ( talk) 10:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OK boomer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article and talk page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The OK Boomer expression seems to have suddenly disappeared entirely from usage?! -- Tallard ( talk) 04:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
A user not aware that talk-page text is NOT to be deleted (WP:TALK) (user:smuckola) previously deleted my comment! Do not do this.-- Tallard ( talk) 00:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
In fact, given the short longevity of this expression, and that wikipedia is not a compendium of all expressions from all time, this article might be a candidate for deletion.-- Tallard ( talk) 00:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
On 1998 on the cover page of a Sonic comic book, specifically issue 140, the index features a section called “Hey boomers”. This may be one of the earliest versions of the phrase “ok boomers”. 69.178.59.187 ( talk) 04:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Is it worth pointing out that "OK Boomer" is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, attempting to dismiss arguments by attacking the person making them rather than by responding to the actual content of the argument? AmigoNico ( talk) 01:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Have created the applicable redirects OK! Boomer!, Ok! Boomer!, and Okay! Boomer!. With the addition of two exclamation marks the term is turned from a negative divisive expression of disdain to a positive affirmation of a generation of accomplishment. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Good morning. I reverted your last two bold edits to the OK boomer page as WP:UNDUE and in violation of WP:NPOV. You also don't need to critique the critique in the lede — any refutations of criticism belong in a discussion/criticism/responses section, ideally at the end. As your bold edits were reverted, it is a good idea to engage in the WP:BRD cycle. Create a new topic on the article's talk page, present your suggested wording changes and see what others think. Then when we have consensus, we can implement the agreed upon text without fear of reversion or edit warring. Lewisguile ( talk) 10:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)